Agree. Finalizing the committee before tomorrow isn’t my preference. Happy to make as many changes as necessary though to get everyone onboard and comfortable with this BIP. Criteria for committee membership is a direct quote from you. As you can see from the above and internally, we’ve given no pushback at all–all suggestions have been incorporated so far. For this committee issue though, there is a conflict between your statement here and the statement made by Marcus here:
On our end, we stand ready to determine composition now or in the future, but if we want to take a more measured approach, perhaps more time on this would be beneficial. This BIP can establish the timeline, need, and qualifications for a committee, but postpone further claims until committee composition is determined, if the approach below is taken.
This works for us, if it works for you. Voters can ratify the first set of verified claims w/o the need for a committee. This also addresses the issue Marcus had w/ the first payout being too rushed. The ratifying BIPs can be pushed back to the 30 and 60 day window, so that there are now 2 payouts instead of 3. If you’d like to move forward w/ this approach, we certainly can, just let me know.
It’s your BIP, but something that the Maxis can write into a clear spec/payload that dictates some on-chain actions, perhaps pending sign-off from legal, is something we can easily execute on and is important.
In my opinion, it’s better to leave most of the rest for later, but perhaps there are other opinions and I don’t mean to drown them out nor trump other points of view.
Defi protocols shouldn’t be liable for users not checking what they’re signing with their wallets, but it’s important for Balancer to restore brand trust atm.
Given the capped $350k budget, I don’t see any issues with this proposal.
The BIPs should also contain the transaction for each address where they were drained.
As @Fernando mentioned, it’s possible that victims on other malicious frontends will submit claims.
In order to be eligible I think it should be evident that addresses submitted have used Balancer in the past, and potentially within a given timeframe (used Balancer within the past 1/3/6 months etc).
Not sure the treasury really has 96 ETH to spare. It would probably be better to specify sending USDC. I suppose there is 96 ETH that we could send and buy to backfill with a separate BIP, but I we kind of need gas runway and USDC is normally what we pay in.
Also budget is in USDC so easier if payout is denominated in the same coin.
Hello everyone, I verify ownership of the AuraMaxi.eth wallet.
Here is my digital signature:
I give up claims to any further compensation related to this situation.
Thanks everyone for all your assistance on this. I really, really appreciate it. Special thanks to @Fernando@0xMaha@Tritium@Franklin@Danko8383 and everyone else helping get this addressed so swiftly. Thank you @Jojo@jameskbh@Chrom@zilayo and @markus for your helpful comments on this proposal. I’m very grateful to you for the consideration and great care with which this has been handled.
A year ago I decided to dig into DeFi and settled on Balancer as the platform to focus my energies and resources on. A major reason for that is that Balancer is one of the few “well-lighted places” in DeFi, organized, well-designed and providing value to many protocols. The thing enabling all that is of course the skilled community of people operating behind and in front of the curtain. Thank you again.
Added the technical specification and made it clear that the DAO multisig will transfer the specified USDC amount to the affected address resolving to auramaxi.eth.
Glad we were all able to find a solution for this, and that Balancer and Bal Maxis were wise enough to understand the importance of this particular situation.
It’s not up to Balancer or the Bal Maxis. It’s up to voters.
We may have our opinions. I may be quite loud ;), but in the end we are here to foster and facilitate a decentralised governance process.
I don’t want to speak for my esteemed colleagues but, at the end of the day, all I really care about is:
1: There is a clear paylaod to execute
2: It not malicious and does what the BIP says.
3: There are 1 million yes votes and more yeses than nos
4: The GRC isn’t telling us to hold off.
5: All required reviews have been complete.
Yes for sure is up to voters. What I mean is that the willingness from Bal and Maxis to support the setup of this proposal is not only a good first step but also speaks loud about what is right imo.
